Shipbucket

So while I've been trying to frame up an AU, I've finally come to the first dreadnoughts of the nation and am curious how reasonable these Spring Sharp results are. I understand that there are limits to SS, heck it seems like it randomly changes the resulting figure occasionally while just going back through the tabs to see what I've input. I also understand that it is overly favorable to slow ships and to new ships. The nation and timeline results in the ships being coal burning(lignite/sub-bituminous), the main battery shells and cases are vertically stored and the magazines are below the shell ring in the barbettes. If the designs are overly displaced then I would rather reduce the displacement than add more to the armament. The guns by British definition are QF but in reality their merely sliding block breeches using brass cartridges(could bi-metal construction as in thin wall manganese hull sides and brass base work?) there by being QF. I predict the 11in being able to reach around 4 salvos a minute(15sec) and the 12in reaching around 3.5 salvos a minute(17.xxxsec) considering the lifts are vertical feed chains for the shells and I assume the same for cartridge cases(could the same elevator be used for both or need separate elevators per shell and cartridge?).



Plan 1905, Muscatatuck BB laid down 1907

Displacement:
14,550 t light; 15,320 t standard; 16,332 t normal; 17,141 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(361.00 ft / 361.00 ft) x 87.00 ft x (28.00 / 29.18 ft)
(110.03 m / 110.03 m) x 26.52 m x (8.53 / 8.89 m)

Armament:
6 - 11.00" / 279 mm 45.0 cal guns - 671.17lbs / 304.44kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1907 Model
3 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
1 raised mount
20 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 32.27lbs / 14.64kg shells, 300 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1907 Model
14 x Single mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
4 raised mounts
6 x Single mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
6 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 4,672 lbs / 2,119 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 271.00 ft / 82.60 m 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 4.00" / 102 mm 271.00 ft / 82.60 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Main Belt covers 115 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 2.50" / 64 mm 10.0" / 254 mm

- Protected deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 8.00" / 203 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 11,682 ihp / 8,715 Kw = 16.50 kts
Range 6,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,822 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
722 - 939

Cost:
£1.098 million / $4.393 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,003 tons, 6.1 %
- Guns: 1,003 tons, 6.1 %
Armour: 6,719 tons, 41.1 %
- Belts: 2,718 tons, 16.6 %
- Armament: 918 tons, 5.6 %
- Armour Deck: 2,916 tons, 17.9 %
- Conning Tower: 166 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 1,298 tons, 7.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,530 tons, 33.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,782 tons, 10.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
34,329 lbs / 15,571 Kg = 51.6 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 4.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.33
Metacentric height 6.8 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 14.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.44
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.650 / 0.655
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.15 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.00 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 50.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 126.9 %
Waterplane Area: 24,060 Square feet or 2,235 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 124 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 178 lbs/sq ft or 869 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.14
- Longitudinal: 5.17
- Overall: 1.33
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather










Plan 1909, Muscatatuck BB laid down 1911 (Engine 1912)

Displacement:
15,221 t light; 16,283 t standard; 17,588 t normal; 18,632 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(369.00 ft / 361.00 ft) x 87.00 ft x (28.00 / 29.45 ft)
(112.47 m / 110.03 m) x 26.52 m x (8.53 / 8.98 m)

Armament:
6 - 12.00" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 871.37lbs / 395.24kg shells, 200 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1911 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
1 raised mount
14 - 5.00" / 127 mm 51.0 cal guns - 66.46lbs / 30.15kg shells, 250 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1911 Model
10 x Single mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
10 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
4 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck forward
4 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
Weight of broadside 6,159 lbs / 2,794 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 220.00 ft / 67.06 m 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 4.00" / 102 mm 220.00 ft / 67.06 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 11.0" / 279 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Protected deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 8.00" / 203 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 27,308 ihp / 20,372 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,349 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
763 - 992

Cost:
£1.324 million / $5.297 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,303 tons, 7.4 %
- Guns: 1,303 tons, 7.4 %
Armour: 6,453 tons, 36.7 %
- Belts: 2,378 tons, 13.5 %
- Armament: 995 tons, 5.7 %
- Armour Deck: 2,905 tons, 16.5 %
- Conning Tower: 175 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 1,808 tons, 10.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,657 tons, 32.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,367 tons, 13.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
28,352 lbs / 12,860 Kg = 32.8 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.35
Metacentric height 6.9 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 13.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 57 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.37
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.15

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a ram bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.700 / 0.705
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.15 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.00 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 63 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 22.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m, 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Aft deck: 30.00 %, 19.00 ft / 5.79 m, 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Quarter deck: 18.00 %, 17.00 ft / 5.18 m, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Average freeboard: 19.08 ft / 5.81 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 64.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 119.4 %
Waterplane Area: 25,173 Square feet or 2,339 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 181 lbs/sq ft or 885 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.07
- Longitudinal: 4.69
- Overall: 1.24
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Adequate accommodation and workspace room



^updated 4/10/17
Criticism and faults being pointed out are expected, its the internet after all.

Neither design has belt armor...

From my own research:

The big problem the pre-dreadnought designers had:

a. shock mountings.
b. propellant stowage.
c. shell stowage.

The shock mounting (recoil) problem in US ships' main battery barbette mounted guns up to and through the first world war was largely handled by a counter mass vertical weight system that was built into the main gun cradles and formed the front face of the rotating barbette. As the barrel recoiled on its slide, it raised the weight and then as it moved forward back into battery the weight fell. The gun lay problem is OBVIOUS. One does not obtain a four round per minute rate of fire with this kind of system. One does not even obtain two rounds per minute. As this was the only practical solution for shock mounting guns of 21 cm bore or larger before robust recuperators were developed around 1905, it appears at least for American tech, any claims of 30.5 cm guns firing more than every 90 seconds is simply not true. Physically impossible. Once large reliable hydraulic recuperators (from France) become practical, then (the Germans first) recuperated main armament becomes the battleship norm.

I have to admit that I cheated for Mr. McKinley's Navy. I hand waved the annealing problem for really large brass cartridges for unitary rounds and declared that the Americans solved it by 1890. The Germans really wanted to solve that problem because the wedge block breech guns they adopted seem made for unitary rounds and single hoist solutions. Before 1925 when Krupp and Rheinmetall finally solved the problem, for really large bore guns (again the break seems to be 21 cm bore) the brass cartridge, once subjected to breech chamber pressures, ballooned out of round too much to reuse without mechanical reforming and a new heat treat to set the rounding (annealing). The Spanish bitterly complained, during the Spanish American War that their 14 cm and 16 cm brass cases came back from Schneider and Ansaldo out of round; and as a result, caused breech plug jams and or blew out the breech blocks of their Hontoria copies of Schneider Canet 5.5 and 6.5 inch guns rapid fire guns. I believe them. But even at that, the "German" system of that era above 15 cm bore seems to have used a three hoist system and three lines of charge feed to load a Krupp naval gun. The first unit hoisted was the bullet. This would be a cast shell, a bit further advanced than the Paixham shell of the 1840s, but really not materially that much different as a cast iron or mild steel bodied round. It was highly susceptible to shatter-gap against the new Harvey and Krupp plate steels coming into service. Then in the German system would come the first bagged charge that for the Germans was made out of a specialized wool case fabric instead of the silk that the French and the British used. There are financial, political and technological reasons why the Germans could not obtain silk, but suffice it to say, that the Germans sold their solution to second tier navies who quickly discovered that wool rots and this can degrade ammunition propellant and interact with it in dangerous ways if you are not conscientious and rotate your stocks or use them. The Germans were careful. Brazilians and Spaniards were not. It hurt them badly. But back to the German system. The first bagged charge (called the fore charge) was followed by the aft charge or the "kicker". This charge was nestled by hand into a brass button breech plate complete with a lead gas seal ring. The sequence was bullet, fore charge, aft charge, and the brass seal breech plate or ring in the loading tray, all rammed in sequence, bullet first to seat the driver bands into the lands and grooves, fore charge up against the bullet, then depending on the gun model, either the aft charge and brass button together or the aft charge and then the brass button. It was Germanically hideously complicated as a loading procedure. One is surprised at how safely and quickly the German gun crews could do it inside the cramped gunhouses of the Brandenburgs. So, when I AU had the Americans adopt this system instead of the de Bang system, I emphasized that the AU Americans would have a lot of trouble with it. Their new steel navy ships blow up and some of their Endicott forts disappear in massive explosions. They would eventually solve it by rigorously developing a native annealing technology and special brass alloys that allow them to develop cartridged naval shells up to 30 cm bore, but I essentially cheated on this assumption since RTL history does not show anyone solved it until after WW I.

So... Battleships in your AU I should expect to have a string of Mutsu type accidents. A lot of accidents.

Shell stowage comes in two basic how not to do it solutions. Lay the shell on its side so it can be rolled to the shell hoist, or stand it on its base. Seaman Fumbles, whether the shell is base fused (American q1898) or nose fused (most everyone else same era) will find a way to bump the fuse and activate the shell in the powder handling room. Pre-world war one, when it was by muscle and carts, stand the shell up. That is safer.

PROPELLANTS: here is where you have your USS Maine type catastrophes. Assuming that the ship has its powder stowage right next to ye olde coal bunker...

The propellants everyone uses whether bagged in silk or wool are not too stable and are heat sensitive. The US Navy was so aware of how dangerous it was, they demanded inventors create automatic magazine flooding fire alarm initiated safety systems for both the magazines and the coal bunkers. USS Maine was the result. After that the USN made daily manual inspection mandatory.

You cannot overreach the tech. AU or otherwise, expect big naval guns to take up to four minutes between shots, and smaller (6 inch bore down) quick fire guns to not exceed 6-10 shots per minute. Rapid fire guns may punch out up to 15 shells per minute, but ONLY for that first minute. They need cool-down times after of up to 15 minutes for some of the larger bore Nordenfelds. A Driggs Schroeder 6 pounder was good for 10 shots per minute for 3 minutes, but needed a similar cool-down. The Hotchkiss revolver cannon, notoriously inaccurate, was popular, because with six or ten barrels, it could sustain rapid fire for some time and was the closest thing at 15 to 21 shots a minute to an auto cannon.

Hello Muscatuck

Technical issues aside - I know that the 381mm rifles on the German battleship Baden were credited with a firing cycle of 22-23 seconds, but that does not sound very sustainable to me - your ship designs are small hulls with a limited number of the heaviest guns available. Their armour scheme (armoured box protection) will be vulnerable in a close-range shootout even against a weaker ship; when battleship size shells start hitting your hull, flooding will kill you very quickly even with magazines and machinery fully intact. The German WWI-era battleships were designed to fight in foggy conditions at point-blank range, where high ROF was essential, so they were the opposite of your designs: large hulls with lots of armour everywhere and a high number relatively light guns. Without this sort of protection, your ships will have to fight at long range to avoid getting hit, for which tactic their heavy guns are well suited. At long range however, high ROF is not really needed; you have to spot fall of shot and continually correct bearing and elevation, so it does not make sense to fire before the last shell has struck. To sum it up, any fancy system to beef up ROF is not required on this particular design.

Greetings
GD

Thank you Tobius, you have pointed out what I had not stopped to ponder, also a few accounts I had not known of, and have brought up interesting questions.

As to shock(recoil),
The 12"/40 US gun backs up your claim at .66 rof until about 1906 when it was bumped to 2rof but now I'm curious did the South Carolina and its 12"/45 have the recuperators at its original fitout? Navweps lists the 12"/45 at only 2-3 but doesn't mention if this was always or after a rebuild. Also is the rof based on firing at the same elevation as loading angle? Sinc the plan 1905 is laid spring of 1907 and the nation has semi-close ties with Germany, closer than any other nation does this mean it would be feasible to achieve the 2-3rof of the 12/56 of Germany, I don't think the ship would be commissioned until close to 1911. The British test the 15"/45 of the Bayern class at 23 sec and these used the fore charges, would the 14 be cabale of slightly faster since its one case instead of 2-3 propellant parts?

Propellent storage,
Were all base charges hand laid into the cases at time of loading or are they stored in the cases? Would it be feasible to combine the fore and base charges into one case? I didn't expect annealing problems with straight wall cartridges(I guess I'm not using my 41Rem. Mag brass enough at 12-15 loads before I get cracks), I've only dealt with having to anneal shouldered cases. Would it be feasible to load a case with RB C/06 propellant and place a cap such as either cork or a brass disk to seal the case? Speaking of cases, why would I have to reuse a case without it going back to be resized and reloaded first, or was this just for the bag loaded cases? Could the case be made of a brass base obturator and thin manganese(I don't think magnesium would be stable enough even when painted)wall that would burn out leaving just the brass base to reduce the amount of space taken up by empty cases and reduces the mass of the internal ejection(heavy case vs light disk)? Could the brass cases be lifted mouth up or do they need to be sideways on the lifts? If mouth up, could a ring system similar to the shells be used for storage?I would assume magazine fires based on heat would be just as likely as the warned risk but would capped cases be better at resisting flash ignition.

Shell storage,
Would point up lifts work or would the shells need to be sideways lifted? I pictured a shell lift system somewhat similar to the US use of inner and outer rings on two levels.

The Mutsu comment is that about shells or propellant safety, wasn't there a magazine cook off from an electrical fire?
The coal bunkers if behind a separate bulk head and airspaced from barbette, would this be enough to help prevent a coal firing ignition of propellant?

Garlicdesign, I will play with the armor scheme more in a few hours, would a belt and protected deck be better at 14k-10k yards or belt and armored deck?

Apparently it wont let me delete a post so this double post is now reduced as small as it can be.

How did you sim the 12in box in SS?

Looks like you have entered 12in deck armour as I can see that from the armour weight breakdown, but where did you sim the weight of the sides of the box?

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

You are welcome. There are others here, far more knowledgeable than I about what you attempt, but I hope that what little I know, helps.
Hmm. From USS Arkansas on the US shipbuilders used recuperators exclusively.

But even before that happened:

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-40_mk3.php
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_10-40_mk3.php



Now what I find interesting is that as early as 1898, the British were installing recognizable modern hydraulic recuperators aboard the HMS Formidable and the HMS Implacable, then building. They had no end of trouble with the tech clear into WW I. The cylinders leaked, the fluids were fire hazards and so forth.



My guess is that the Americans were extremely conservative and stayed with mechanical rocker systems until at least the 1906 timeframe I suggested. The South Carolina may have been their first battleship class to use French style cradle mounts.
Laid inside the brass button at the time of mounting on the feed tray or rammed separately depending on the model of the gun. You see this safety practice clear into WW II. This allows for visual inspection of the bag and last minute rejection if the gun crew notices tears, mold, crystallization or any other visible to the eye defects in the charge.
For mechanical handling reasons the Germans did not think so. I've seen old films of US gun crews loading old Endicott 12 in coast defense mortars (Edison filmed a practice) and I have to tell you, that the practices used were extremely unsafe. The speed at which the army crews were able to fire (1 shot per 15 seconds) on dry land was simply incredible, and this was all done by hand and wheeled trolley. I have seen an old film of a British gun crew load an old dreadnought style gun in a gun house and they were far slower and much more careful. Both used bag charges and the de Bang system modified by either Rogers or Wellin interrupted screw breech blocks. I cannot say why the Germans used fore and aft charges. I know why those who used the de Bang system used multiple bag charges in a powder train. Controlled overpressure burn in the breech chamber and the bags were at the limit of what one average man could move by size and weight without the risk of tear or damage to the bag or the spill of highly flammable propellant in an extremely dangerous fire prone and cramped work space.


I doubt it. 273 MPascals is a LOT of pressure on a 30.5 cm bore breech. And for obvious reasons I'm not a fan of manganese (see above and below where you mentioned it as a ring seal material) in any way shape or form around a breech block. I prefer creosote sponge or LEAD, as they sensibly used in those days.
A brass case exposed to overpressure in the breech tends to balloon around the mid-body or at weak point in the case wall. This happens because the breech heats up to around softening point of brass every time the propellant burns.
Yes, but why would you want to do that when weight is not an issue and lead is much safer, cheaper and more plentiful for either the case or the brass base button? The lead will remain and after factory reset is reusable.
This is what I assume the Americans did in my AU. The continuous step chain hoist is easier to design for a shell or bag charge on its side (US battleships in general), but for a unit round, stand it on its base. Unless the propellant is a preformed stick or molded candle (modern practice) you want to make sure the granules/pellets do not slosh and bunch up in clumps in handling. Uneven burn means two dangers: flame flash from unburnt propellant and bag silk or spot burn which torches the breech chamber walls and creates weak spots. You get that anyway, but juggling the bag charges as you rotate your stocks around to make sure the granules are evenly distributed reduces the occurrences and the dangers. With a unit round, you have to either open the cartridge and rotate the bags inside or you have to learn how to make a burn candle which is akin to a solid rocket mortar. In 1910, that is not going to happen. So that unit round will have to be separated, the bag charges inside rotated and those charges visually inspected. Hopefully at least every three months.

Unit rounds can be insulated. and are easier to move by machines. The bag charges are somewhat safer inside brass from a spark hazard, but standing heat, moisture, and accidental tears in movement remain other hazards nontheless. Nothing changes the dangers from nitrocellulose powders used in the period. Nothing. Your chief dangers remain moisture and crystallization. If I were you, I'd think about air conditioning your battleships' magazines.
Already addressed. The US used horizontal bag charge lifts and point up shell hoists to feed trays in some of their ships. With unit rounds the point up shell hoist with flipper tray would be my choice.
Since the people who caused the accident died in the explosion; one can only guess. From what I can discern from similar debacles in British, French and American warships, the causes are most likely:

a. someone smoked in the powder room. With the IJN, do not laugh... it is possible.
b. something hydraulic caught fire.
c. Something chemical in nature was left standing to spontaneously combust. (Couple of American aircraft carriers became dockyard cases because someone did not police the rag bins.)
d. or the lighting system shorted out. Again with the IJN this is possible.
e. or a service panel shorted out and the trips did not work. See d.
I tend to think not enough. Safe practices are essential and far more important, no matter what the designed layout. Coal dust in air can act like a fuel air explosive bomb. One spark or one flame point and goodbye. The Maine blew up because her bunkers were not clean, were not kept clean and the coal was mishandled. I would have charged Sicard with dereliction; for not making damned sure that his stokers and deck apes did their jobs to wet wipe and dry wipe the bunkers before the last coaling and to properly handle the coal transfer from deck to bunkers. thereafter. That coal can be stacked wrong and that when stacked wrong as it shuffles around as the ship pitches and rolls it can rub and sandpaper itself to generate black fog is a known hazard.

That is coal can overheat in a steel box as the box becomes an oven is inevitable. That simple cross ventilation is not enough to keep the coal dust from accumulating as black fog is a known hazard. All in 1898. Sicard screwed up and lost his ship.

At least Hiram Rickover thought so.

I have updated the original post springsharp sheets.

Thanks Tobius, I think I found the video you mentioned(seacoast artillary part 1 and 2?) and seeing the crew ram powder bags into a smoking chamber seems very risky. The coal fire(dust explosion) is a risk that would be faced at varying risk based on crew until oil fueled boilers come into use correct?

Could the cases be loaded in the powder room at the base of the barbette or is that done in the magazines themselves? Would 12in be theoretically feasible at 3.5 rpm and 11in at 4rpm since the powder bags are lifted in a case(say we figured out how to fit fore and main in one case)? Also, where is the lead or sponge go exactly, is it the obturator or is it something else? I was trying to describe the brass base as the obturator but the manganese as a combustible side similar to the cloth but sturdier so it could be lifted as a whole round(shell sitting atop). How early could the layover feed tray that is vertically loaded be used, and could it be used for the cartridge as well?

Hood,
I was under the assumption spring sharp boxed in the machinery and magazines when set on that function, so your saying it only puts the top armor(deck) of the box with that setting?

I will draw a armor cross section and a barbette to hopefully picture what I'm trying to say.

Here's the armor cross section since the box idea was killed by Garlic since the vessels are intended for close combat along the lines of the North Sea. Waterlines and hull marks are in blue and armor labeled for the armor in inches. The idea behind the 4in is that it will decap/fuse the incoming shells while also limiting water intake above the belt, the water lines are standard and heavy displacement.



Tobius, and anyone else, would this barbette design work?
2 shell decks and case preparation deck(limited number of preloaded cases by the final lift) are above the rollers(final lit is green,powder lift is orange). The shell decks have a independent rotation ring (redfloor) to better aid shell transport to the final lift. The magazine is below the rollers and is stationary and features scuttles on both floors and the case prep floor, the powder lift rotates with the gunhouse to maintain alignment of the upper scuttle with the shell preparation area. The powder is stored on racks(is it too early for tube racks vs open racks?). The operation would be powder up to case prep, cartridge stopped just below shell deck to have the projectile set upon the rung just above the cartridge, the up to the gunhouse where it is rammed home(could it be a single ram or would the shell have to be rammed then the cartridge?) the port final lift has access to shell deck1 and case prep port and powder deck1 byway of powder lift port, whereas starboard lift has access to shell deck2 and case prep starboard and powder deck 2 by powder liftstarboard. Can the lifts be based this way or do the final lifts have to access to both shell decks, and case preps, same question for the powder lifts being in both powder decks and case preps?